토지사용 재결처분 취소
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. On November 10, 2016, the Defendant’s real estate indicated in paragraph 1 of the attached Table owned by the Plaintiff.
1. The reasons for this part of the disposition are as follows: (a) the court shall accept this part of the disposition in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except that the court shall dismiss “the two-party administrative property” as “the two-party administrative property as a mother state forest.” (b) except that the two-party administrative property is “the two-party administrative property.”
2. The details of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes are as shown in attached statutes;
3. Determination
A. Article 12(1) of the Railroad Construction Act provides that “A project operator may expropriate or use land, goods, or rights (hereinafter “land, etc.”) stipulated in Article 3 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”) if necessary for a railroad construction project.” The former part of Article 12(2) provides that “where an implementation plan is approved and publicly notified by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, project approval under Article 20(1) of the Land Compensation Act and public announcement of project approval under Article 22 of the same Act shall be deemed to have been made,” and Article 12(4) provides that “Except as otherwise provided in this Act, the Land Compensation Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the expropriation or use of land, etc. under paragraph (1).”
According to these regulations, a project operator of a railroad construction project has a general right to expropriate or use land where necessary for the project in accordance with the Land Compensation Act.
B. However, in full view of the following circumstances revealed by relevant statutes, a project operator for railroad construction projects shall not be permitted to expropriate or use any permanent state forest stipulated in the former Act on Management and Management of State Forests (amended by Act No. 14357, Dec. 2, 2016; hereinafter “State Forest Act”).